In an article written by Mike Pence and published today, the former Vice-President has suddenly found a need to focus on election integrity. After the timeframe has passed for his actions to bear any significant sunlight upon the 2020 election, Pence now expresses some concerns.
Writing with the Daily Signal the executive earworm now says he doesn’t like the idea that Nancy Pelosi and the Fascist party are attempting to make election manipulation a permanent feature of the U.S. voting system.
Mike Pence – After an election marked by significant voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of the 2020 election.
That’s why when I was serving as presiding officer at the joint session of Congress certifying the Electoral College results, I pledged to ensure that all objections properly raised under the Electoral Count Act would be given a full hearing before Congress and the American people.
The tragic events of Jan. 6—the most significant being the loss of life and violence at our nation’s Capitol—also deprived the American people of a substantive discussion in Congress about election integrity in America. (read more)
It would appear Nikki Haley has informed Pence if he doesn’t quickly jump into the MAGA ship, he will likely be left on the island of DeceptiCons starving for political relevance.
The GOP Is Not Going to Divide Over Gay Republicans
There is nothing that would make the left happier than for the GOP to
leave the votes of a huge portion of the gay community on the table,
but that’s not going to happen. See, the Republican base looked around,
saw it better stop being so finicky about allies, and it changed. We’re
not going to win by subtraction. We’re going to win by addition. Okay,
we can make an exception and subtract aspiring MSNBC meat puppet Liz
Cheney. She’s terrible.
But there
are some people who see a lane for personal prominence they can’t
otherwise earn through refighting battles that we called a truce on
years ago. Well, we’re not kicking out gay Republicans for being gay. We
will kick gays out for being Fredocons
who collaborate with the enemy. We’ll kick anyone out for being a
Fredocon who collaborates with the enemy. If you are loyal, you are
welcome.
Our goal must be, at a minimum, to hold 50 percent + one
of the American voting population. In a two-party system, it’s unlikely
to get a lot more for any length of time. If you get 55 percent it’s a
landslide, but that’s the nature of the beast. Arbitrarily excluding
groups is therefore ridiculous, and the silliness starts with
identifying people by groups. Are all gay people the same? No, some are
conservative, some liberal, and some don’t care at all about politics.
The same with trans people. If you’re trans and a conservative, you’re
welcome in the GOP. If you are trans and support the whole erasure of
womanhood agenda, we are probably not the party for you. This is also
true if you are cisgender and support the whole erasure of the womanhood
agenda. And it is also true if you use terms like “cisgender”
unironically.
The GOP is always going to split on these social issues. It’s
the party where the people who still oppose gay marriage will go, but
that’s not to say it can’t also have people who do support gay marriage.
In fact, the main response to the gay marriage issue for the GOP base
in 2021 is to put it at about #9,001 on the priority list. We have a
desiccated old weirdo in the White House drooling as he watches the damn
commies run rampant wrecking everything good about America and selling
us out to the Chi Coms, and the last thing we are interested in is if
Ted Cruz attends Jim and John’s destination wedding in Cancun.
Life is about choices. Strategy requires priorities. And, as Mick Jagger said, you can’t always get what you want.
If
our priority is defeating the full-frontal assault on every aspect of
American life, we are going to need to go to battle stations with all
hands on deck, and not on some Bulwark cruise ship either.
In
other words, we can disagree about some issues but work together on
what we agree about most. That’s how coalitions work. That’s not some
brilliant insight either – it’s Politics 101.
I hate to bring up
Ric Grenell here because the least interesting thing about him is that
he is gay, but he represents the choice to win that conservatives are
making. I was on an expressly religious show a bit ago with very
conservative Christian folks – I had to watch my mouth – and when Ric’s
name came up, they cheered. They adore him. A few years ago, that might
not have happened, but the fanatical support for him among people whose
stereotypes say they must reject him for his sexuality – Ric is
particularly beloved by gruff and grizzled military vets – would blow
liberal minds if they ever bothered studying their opponents. It’s no
surprise to us, though. Ric is hardcore, conservative woke, and a
terrific communicator who takes no guff. That’s why the base digs him.
That’s why I think he will be president someday.
There have been some ankle-biting attacks on him recently
though from within the right – the idea of Ric Grenell as any kind of
progressive is literally too stupid to express without laughing – and
it’s easy to see why. You can sometimes distinguish yourself through
opposition when you can’t distinguish yourself through actual
achievement. It’s a cynical flex dressed up in faux moral guardian garb,
and besides being counterproductive (except for the people doing it)
it’s tiresome and boring. But there’s going to be an element of the GOP
that’s going to respond, not a majority or even a significant minority,
but within our boutique culture, we have seen that people can grift
effectively within niches. That’s what this is – if you get a five
percent fan base among 50 percent of voters, that 2.5 percent is still a
lot of people in terms of absolute numbers even if that bunch is not
particularly important in the big picture.
The GOP did very well
in the last election in terms of embracing true diversity. The kind of
diversity that we need is not the libs’ ridiculous box-checking that
morphs individuals into categories. The diversity we need is the ability
to welcome and work with everyone who shares our basic American values
of patriotism, freedom, the defense of family and faith, and the Bill of
Rights. That does not mean lockstep agreement on every detail – after
all, we are not Democrats – but it does require an understanding that a
>50 percent + one coalition requires us to work with people we
sometimes do not see exactly eye-to-eye with. We need to accept an 85
percent ally – call it “the Susan Collins Corollary.”
In 2012, Mitt Romney, to his everlasting shame, kicked Ric
Grenell off his campaign because Ric is gay. Mitt lost – and this was
yet another example of the kind of incompetence, spinelessness, and
weakness that ensured he failed. But when we don’t pull that kind of
crap, we win. Look at the results in 2020. We nearly took back the
House, and if you look at the people who got elected, they did not look
like a Romney family reunion.
What’s impressive is not, “Oh goody,
we got one of these and one of those and aren’t we woke,” but the fact
that we effectively leveraged the talents of every kind of person
without arbitrarily denying ourselves the talents of anyone. When you
exclude based on superficial factors, you’re not just being unAmerican
and obnoxious. You’re depriving yourself of combat power for your
campaign.
We need to, and will, reject the haters and the cynical
dividers. That’s not to say that we must demand lockstep agreement on
every issue, including some of the most emotional ones. We need to be a
party that has conservative gay married men and conservative people who
don’t believe in gay marriage, a party where we can agree to disagree in
order to unite to fight for bigger priorities. When someone demands we
purge the gays, dissent. And when someone says we must purge the
traditional marriage folks, dissent.
Don’t give in to the grifters. Don’t make the Dems smile. We need everyone for the big fight. And the big fight is here.
It has now been nearly a year since “public health experts” began appearing on television talk shows insisting that, to survive COVID-19, the nation would have to pursue unprecedented mitigation policies. They told us that our salvation required draconian measures such as school closures, stay-at-home orders, and business lockdowns. Moreover, we were advised not to expect a fast return to our normal lives. In early April 2020, for example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel solemnly assured us, “We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine…. We need to prepare ourselves for this to last 18 months or so and for the toll that it will take.”
The good doctor didn’t mention that, for a man of his means, “the toll that it will take” would be negligible even as it disrupted the education of millions of children, rendered their parents unemployed, and wreaked social and psychological havoc throughout society. The sainted Dr. Anthony Fauci echoed Dr. Zeke: “I know it’s difficult … this is inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint, but we just have to do it.” Not coincidentally, Fauci is the highest-paid bureaucrat in Washington. But not all public health experts accepted the cost-benefit analyses offered by Drs. Emanuel and Fauci.
Among the first actual epidemiologists who advised that more information was needed before draconian mitigation measures could be scientifically justified was Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis of the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Ioannidis questioned the reasoning used by people like Emanuel and Fauci in an essay published in STAT, where he wrote that the precipitous response to the pandemic was “a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco” and that decisions of monumental significance were being made without truly dependable data concerning how many people had been infected:
The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed.… In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work.… [w]e don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health.
Shortly after Ioannidis wrote his essay, Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which he denounced shutdowns in general. Osterholm begins his column by informing the Post’s readers of a reality to which few of its readers had been previously exposed: “Covid-19 will go away eventually in one of two ways. Either we will develop a vaccine to prevent it, or the virus will burn itself out as the spread of infection comes to confer a form of herd immunity on the population.”
The term “herd immunity” is now frowned upon by politicians in Washington and some states because they are reluctant to relinquish the money that comes with huge COVID-19 “relief packages” and the power to place arbitrary restrictions on our civil liberties. Nonetheless, it is “a thing.” Public health experts such as University of Alabama epidemiologist Dr. Suzanne Judd and Dr. Marty Makary of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine predict that we may reach herd immunity by spring. This is why Osterholm warned us a year ago against pursuing lockdowns without any real understanding of the alternatives:
Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold. We can’t have everyone stay home and still produce and distribute the basics needed to sustain life and fight the disease.… We are in uncharted territory.
Another early critic of lockdowns was Dr. Knut M. Wittkowski. Like many other epidemiologists, Wittkowski’s warnings were ignored during the lockdown frenzy. In addition to his concerns about the ineffectiveness of the shutdowns, he was also worried about their threat to our civil liberties. He posted a YouTube video wherein he discusses these issues, but, after 1.5 million views, the video was taken down with no explanation. The video can be found here, at the American Institute for Economic Research. In it, he makes this observation: “I think people in the United States … are more docile than they should be.”
So, a year later, states like Florida that lifted their lockdowns quickly and eased other restrictions early have far better COVID-19 records than states of similar size, like New York, that stayed locked down longer and were slow to ease other restrictions. Specifically, Florida’s COVID-19 death rate of 144 per 100,000 residents is lower than New York’s 243 per 100,000 residents. Likewise, Georgia has a larger population than New Jersey, yet its COVID-19 death rate of 159 per 100,000 residents is lower than New Jersey’s 262 per 100,000 residents. This pattern repeats itself across the nation. Long lockdowns kill people.
As for our experts, it’s clear that Dr. Zeke didn’t have a clue. He was wrong about how long it would take to produce a vaccine, and his claims about the necessity of draconian lockdowns were sheer nonsense. Dr. Fauci, when it was possible to get him to commit to a single position two days in a row, was usually wrong. His latest flip-flop has involved school reopenings. Meanwhile, Drs. Ioannidis, Osterholm, and Wittkowski have been vindicated despite relentless criticism from the media and deplatforming. It turns out that “following the science” is much like it was in Galileo’s day. Recant your heresy or be canceled at the stake.
President Joe Biden’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary, Xavier Becerra, received no votes from Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday morning, resulting in a tie that could toss the confirmation decision to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the rest of the upper chamber.
Now that the White House withdrew Neera Tanden’s nomination for the administration’s top budget office following pressure and questions about her ability to project Biden’s message of unity after she spent years hurling insults and mean tweets at conservative and even progressive politicians, congressional Republicans are shifting their focus to keep Becerra out of power.
Reasons for opposition to Becerra’s confirmation, especially by Republican legislators and conservative activist groups, continue to pile up, with many citing his lack of health experience and qualifications, his radical position and track record onabortion, hisrefusalto call for free and fair elections in Cuba after meeting with dictator Fidel Castro, his efforts to pursue legal action against the Little Sisters of the Poor for refusing to comply with Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate on religious grounds, and hispromotionof Obamacare,open borders,gun control,and radical climate plans.
Some groups, including Heritage Action for America, are pouring money into television advertisements in states such as Arizona and West Virginia to call senators’ attention to some of these radical positions, while others are capitalizing on his weaponization of the power that came with his position as attorney general of California to target people of faith for their pro-life convictions and prosecute pro-life citizen journalists. Just last week, more than 60 pro-life leaders urged Senate committees to reject Becerra as the nominee based on his “vocal pro-abortion advocacy.”
“Mr. Becerra’s confirmation would be divisive and a step in the wrong direction. We understand that the president needs to assemble a cabinet; however, Mr. Becerra has proven himself to be an enemy of the health of women and the unborn,” the letter states. “He cannot be entrusted with our national health programs and policies and is not qualified to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services.”
Reports suggest that certain Republican senators who may have been on the fence about Becerra, such as Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, are now settled to vote against the HHS nominee, leaving space for the Republicans to possibly sink his nomination with more support.
Democrats and their activist allies, however, are also fighting to confirm Becerra, saying he possesses the leadership and experience they need to accomplish their agenda.
During his confirmation hearings, Becerra not only dodged Republicans’ questions about these issues, including his previous support of partial-birth abortions, but the former California attorney general also falsely claimed he never sued nuns.
“I have never sued the nuns, any nuns,” Becerra said last week. “I’ve never sued any affiliation of nuns, and my actions have always been directed at the federal agencies.”
Dr Fauci’s daughter is a software engineer with Twitter. That
platform bans people who disagree with her father also known as the
Covid Clown because of the way he is wrong about every prediction and
the way he keeps changing his opinions after it’s discovered that he is
dead wrong.
Twitter not only censors conservatives but also crack down on people
who disagree with the Covid Clown. Alison Fauci has been working at the
company since graduating in 2014.
Alison Fauci is part of the Twitter blog page where she has had one
posting titled, “Introducing Serial: improved data serialization on
Android.” Fauci wrote:
“Smooth timeline scrolling on the Twitter for Android app is
important for the user experience, and we’re always looking for ways to
improve it. With some profiling, we discovered that serializing and
deserializing data to and from the database using standard Android
Externalizable classes was taking around 15% of the UI thread time.”
Her position with Twitter seems to be a conflict of interest
considering how they censor anyone who disagrees with the BS her father
puts out Remember when he said masks were not necessary?
Then he said that a mask was a must and then people need 2 masks and
then back to one mask. I could make better predictions by tossing darts
at a dartboard. At least I would have a 50-50 chance of being right.
The
Louvre in Paris has been reunited with two long-lost pieces of Italian
Renaissance armour, nearly 40 years after they were stolen.
The
ornate helmet and breastplate had been recognised by a military expert
in Bordeaux, who was asked to appraise a local family's collection.
Police are investigating how the family came to inherit the items.
Made between 1560 and 1580 in Milan, the armour had been donated in 1922 to the museum by the Rothschild family.
Mystery still surrounds the theft on 31 May, 1983
"I
was certain we would see them reappear one day... But I could never
have imagined that it would work out so well - that they would be in
France and still together," said Philippe Malgouyres, the Louvre's chief
curator of heritage artworks.
The museum's director, Jean-Luc Martinez, said they were "objects of pomp and circumstance".
"These
are quite exceptional pieces that belonged to the collection of the
Baroness de Rothschild and were donated to the Louvre Museum in 1922,"
he said.
Suspicion
over the items' importance was raised in January, after an auctioneer
hired a French military antiquities expert to appraise items a Bordeaux
family had inherited.
He
alerted the police, who found the objects on France's missing artefacts
database, which has more than 100,000 objects listed. Last year alone,
900 were added.
As @Oracle moves to Texas, it’s it’s well past time to take stock of what these internal political migrations actually mean–and what responsibilities governors, mayors and legislators have to ensure that the policy conditions which spurred others to move are not rolled back.
But economic policy is only half the story. Relocations in 2020 differ from prior moving trends bc the country is substantially different; it’s more divided ideologically now, and bridging the divide between, say, MAGA and SJW is impossible. We have 2 poles, and people choose.
It’s a point that’s obvious as hell, but it gets lost in the shuffle: TO ASSUME EVERY AMERICAN AGREES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE REGIME IS MADNESS. If that’s not clear by now to you–if you think it’s only tinkering at the edges–you’re not a serious person. Sorry, no.
When I say you need to look at foreign immigration to understand internal migration, try it. Take all your assumptions re immigration restrictionism vs open borders, and then apply them to this situation. It’ll become pretty clear that, if you were open borders, you were wrong.
You were basing your policy position on ideology so blind and fanatical, it’s shocking: (1) all people or potential immigrants are the same as each other in beliefs and values; and (2) all people or potential immigrants are the same as current Americans.
So that’s the position you take if you’re on the Open Borders, Neoconservative or Libertarian Right. You’ve subconsciously convinced yourself of those 2 absurd things, and all you need is a mantra like, “America is a nation of immigrants” to paper over having to face them.
If you’re on the Left, you have no qualms about what those 2 things mean. You understand you’re out to change the people who makeup of America–and therefore the politics and regime of America itself–because it is unjust. It’s an adversarial position, but at least it’s honest!
If we get back to the New Internal Migration, this still applies–and in spades. Democrat activists are very happy to change the politics of Red States like Texas; they’ve only spent billions on it over the last decade, and immigration (from within and without) is a key part.
GOP governors, mayors & legislators, tho, seem to take another position. Feeling proud of their low-tax, business-friendly economic success stories, they invite everyone to come and share the bounty. Great. But in so doing, they’re accepting the 2 concepts above.
Just like foreign immigration, there MUST BE LIMITS. How much is too much? Does an immigrant from X country or Y state integrate better into the cultural, ideological and political life of the state?
Is it “racist” to even consider such things? The media and the left have taught us it is, re immigration from other countries. When we think about New Yorkers moving to Florida, tho–and the racial component falls away–it’s clear to see that the 2 concepts above are important.
AGAIN: Not caring about immigration or migration means you accept that: (1) all people or potential immigrants are the same as each other in beliefs and values; and (2) all people or potential immigrants are the same as current population in beliefs and values.
In 2020, this is indefensibly airheaded. We are in the midst of a year when Blue & Red States approached a world-altering pandemic in 2 very different ways–and were largely supported by their own voters. NEWSFLASH: People believe different things!
I think it’s GREAT that they do; I just have no desire to live under Blue governance. Let them be fruitful and get as much pleasure out of hyper-ideological Blue social, economic, and every other policy choice. Go for it.
But, respectfully, I don’t want to be anywhere near it. I want, as Phyllis Schlafly famously said, “a choice, not an echo.” That’s why I moved to a Red State– and it’s why millions of Americans have made this ideological migration over the last decade or more.
Many (or all) of these ideological refugees from Blue States come to places like Texas and vote for GOP politicians. I’m told, Ted Cruz’s base of support was from New Texans– proving that a lot of the recent Blue-to-Red migrants are keeping Texas Red. That’s a great thing.
But it’s not the whole story. I think we’d find that those Cruz-supporting New Texans were longtime GOP voters from Blue States like California; they came to a Red State BECAUSE it was a Red State–and they are determined to keep it that way. Again, we love these people!
Things go off the rails, tho, when it’s large companies brimming with hundreds or thousands of relocating employees in traditionally Blue industries, ex Silicon Valley. Nobody seriously argues that Google or Apple is hiring predominantly native Texans or conservatives.
These are New Blue Texans, and there are New Blue Floridians, etc. For these large companies, a Red State is obviously financially advantageous–they have Red politicians bending over to give them what they want. But is it good, in the medium- or long-term, for the citizens?
I’m not calling for bans on big companies relocating, etc. My mission, now, is to make sure politicians and citizens in Red States understand the stakes. The continued success of your states– and your way of life– is hanging in the balance. YOU HAVE A LOT OF LEVERAGE.
Pass legislation aimed squarely at curbing the worst ideological excesses of New Blue migrants to your states. Critical Race Theory, insane diversity hiring, spending to left-wing groups, etc. If they want the advantages of your Red State, force them to abandon their nonsense.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Journalists are praising Joe Biden after he announced that every bomb he drops in the Middle East from now on will be purchased from a black-owned business.
President Biden made the announcement in front of a huge crowd of white journalists on Zoom, who cheered so loud after hearing the news that President Biden had to adjust his earpiece.
"Hey, folks-- here's the deal: we gotta drop some bombs. We just do. That's how things are," said Biden. "We have all these extra bombs lying around collecting dust and we have to drop them on those people over there who -- as intelligence is telling us -- are bad people. They're bad people folks! Gotta bomb 'em!"
"But we're gonna purchase all our future bombs from some clean, articulate black business owners who make bombs. It's just the right thing to do," he continued.
Unfortunately, it was later discovered that there are no black business owners in the country who make bombs for the U.S. military. "Ah man-- that's too bad," said Biden before canceling his meeting with Al Sharpton.
Washington -- We are all supposed to be against conspiracies. Yet
what about a conspiracy to silence free speech? What about a conspiracy
to shut down people who utter thoughts we disagree with? What about
silencing communists? What about silencing Nazis? What about a
conspiracy to silence Democrats or Republicans? What about silencing
those who spout Trumpism? There are a lot of positions that I disagree
with. There are a lot of positions that I agree with. I say, let them
all be heard -- but this is an old-fashioned belief, and I am
increasingly out of step with the times.
On
Capitol Hill, there is a move to shut down political expression, the
political expression of conservatives. In the House of Representatives,
the Democrats have a 10-seat majority. In the next election, that
majority could be reduced. In the next election, it could even vanish.
Right now, people such as Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney want to
limit right-wing speech. They act as though their position in the
majority will last forever. What happens if they are suddenly in the
minority? Will, say, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene be able to limit their
speech? Well, there are no signs that the Republicans have more than one
Marjorie Taylor Greene in their number, but who knows what an election
might bring?
That is why I say that those who want to take on the
First Amendment should pipe down. You are in the majority today. You may
be in the minority tomorrow. Actually, I think you will be in
the minority tomorrow. All that will save your right to speak your mind
is the libertarian streak that runs through the Republican Party.
So-called progressives began their attacks on the First
Amendment by going after individuals. Through the years, they targeted
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Tucker Carlson. They tried
to intimidate these conservatives' advertisers. It worked with some
advertisers, but not with enough. Hannity, Levin and Carlson are still
standing. Bravo! Limbaugh has gone to a better place.
Now the
progressives are going after the networks. This past week, Eshoo and
McNerney threatened Fox News and Newsmax by sending letters to 12 cable
and tech CEOs asking them to break their contracts with Fox and Newsmax.
Later in the week, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing
about "disinformation and extremism" on conservative networks. The
chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology
asseverated in his opening remarks that "it is the responsibility of
this subcommittee to hold these institutions (Fox and Newsmax) to a
higher standard." So it looks like the House of Representatives is
calling it open season on the First Amendment.
Actually, I have
never seen a more open assault by a political party on the Bill of
Rights, and I have not heard a peep of protest or even of caution from
the people who have the most at stake in this assault, the media. Where
are the heroic defenders of freedom of speech? It reminds me of the time
I, as editor of The American Spectator, was being harassed by the
federal government for suggesting that Bill Clinton was not being
completely faithful to his marital vows. Shortly thereafter, I attended a
lecture at which the great freedom of speech advocate Floyd Abrams held
forth on the beauty of the free society, the nobleness of untrammeled
expression, that sort of thing. Well, I recalled how silent Abrams was
during the government's harassment of our magazine. So, I went up to the
great man when he was finished and asked him why he never uttered such
poetry about The American Spectator. Floyd never missed a beat. He said
something to the effect of, "Because you, Tyrrell, never listen." I had
never spoken a word with him before and never have spoken a word with
him since. I have no idea what he was talking about.
Let us see how long it takes the media to wake up to the
threat the Democrats are posing to the media's freedom. We all have
heard what a grave threat Sen. Joseph McCarthy was to freedom of speech
in the 1950s. He became one of the most famous figures in American
history by threatening free speech. Now you have dozens of Democrats
threatening whole networks, and no one has complained, not even in the
media. What happened to freedom of speech?
Federalist Political Editor John Daniel Davidson warned on Wednesday of the border crisis already taking place on the southern border, where smugglers rake in millions in an often misunderstood industry as the United States takes on an influx of migrants.
“I think what a lot of people don’t understand about the border is that migrant trafficking is a huge industry, it’s a black market industry,” Davidson said on Fox Business. “The drug cartels are involved, human smuggling networks and criminal syndicates that span Mexico and Central America and all through the United States are involved. A lot of money gets made … hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Video Player
00:00
03:46yy
“Every person who crosses the border pays. They pay the smugglers, and the cartels get a cut of it, so there’s an incentive to bring children across at the border because they make money doing it,” Davidson explained. “Sometimes those children are related to the adults they’re with, and sometimes they’re not.”
Democrats, meanwhile, are denying there’s a crisis on the southern border even as migrant crossings reach new heights under the new administration, provoked by Biden’s soft rhetoric and the Democrats’ embrace of open borders.
“They don’t want this to be a crisis, because if it is a crisis, which it is, then it proves what some of us gave been saying all along, is that if you send out the message that if you can get across the border that you can stay, well then a lot of people in Central America and Mexico are going to get across the border,” Davidson said. “It’s a magnet.”
Considering the scale of the JoeBama administration pushing panic amid their useful exploit of the rona, their releasing of illegal aliens with COVID is a bit rich.
TEXAS – More than 100 illegal immigrants who tested positive for the coronavirus — after their arrival in Texas since late January — have been released by the Border Patrol into the Lone Star State and are free to travel to other parts of the US, according to reports.
Felipe Romero, a spokesman for the border city of Brownsville, told Fox News that they are telling the migrants who tested positive to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to quarantine and maintain social distance, but that Brownsville doesn’t have the authority to stop them from traveling to the rest of the country.
He said the 108 positives account for 6.3 percent of the total migrants who received rapid tests at the city’s main bus terminal, a program that began on Jan. 25. (read more)
